Suppose a man and woman are at home, and the woman freely drinks three glasses of wine in a short amount of time. Her blood alcohol content is 0.11. Now imagine the following scenarios:1. She gets mad at the man and attacks him, unproked. (let's say she is just an angry drunk) The police are called.2. She gets in her car and goes to the store. She gets pulled over by the police or has an accident.3. She tells the man she wants sex. They have sex.

As a society and especially in the feminist community, why is it that ONLY in the last example the woman, as a society, we claim the woman is a victim and the consequences of her actions are not her own doing? We do not blame the man for the domestic assault or the DWI. But, we expect and require the man to negate the woman's thoughts and desires, reinforcing the idea that woman are victims and need men to protect them.The idea is even more perverse when you factor in the fact that if the man is equally as drunk, than he is STILL to blame. So, both parties are equally unable to consent, but, the man is still liable for actions he does, while the woman is simply excused for any role she has.

This view is the antithesis of feminism. It furthers the notion that woman and men be treated differently by the law, and that women are helpless victims because there is a man around who should have protected her best interests, even if it was against her wishes, because, you know, the man knows what's best for her.

At 10/17/2014 7:13:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:Suppose a man and woman are at home, and the woman freely drinks three glasses of wine in a short amount of time. Her blood alcohol content is 0.11. Now imagine the following scenarios:1. She gets mad at the man and attacks him, unproked. (let's say she is just an angry drunk) The police are called.2. She gets in her car and goes to the store. She gets pulled over by the police or has an accident.3. She tells the man she wants sex. They have sex.

As a society and especially in the feminist community, why is it that ONLY in the last example the woman, as a society, we claim the woman is a victim and the consequences of her actions are not her own doing? We do not blame the man for the domestic assault or the DWI. But, we expect and require the man to negate the woman's thoughts and desires, reinforcing the idea that woman are victims and need men to protect them.The idea is even more perverse when you factor in the fact that if the man is equally as drunk, than he is STILL to blame. So, both parties are equally unable to consent, but, the man is still liable for actions he does, while the woman is simply excused for any role she has.

This view is the antithesis of feminism. It furthers the notion that woman and men be treated differently by the law, and that women are helpless victims because there is a man around who should have protected her best interests, even if it was against her wishes, because, you know, the man knows what's best for her.

Because only in the last case is she doing something that requires the consent of two people to accomplish. And that's true even for men. A man wanting sex when drunk isn't a decision he makes in full cognizance of his abilities and should be refused.

The society's response, as you correctly pointed out, is different in both cases. Mainly because it perceives male and female sexuality differently. Women are considered to be receptors, and not sexual beings, they don't like sex for the sake of liking sex (which is a gross generalization, obviously). So when they consent to sex under the effect of alcohol, it is assumed to be because they are not in control of their neural system. Men are initiators, so them wanting sex under the effect of alcohol doesn't seem so far fetched.

Which is bullsht, of course. I know of men who deeply regretted the sexual 'conquests' they had under the influence of alcohol, so much that they felt violated afterwards. Having sex with someone intoxicated is just something no one should do, no matter the gender.

If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward. A woman in the same position probably won't have the same response. The fact is that there is a difference. Men have the size and strength to obtain sex pretty much when we want. I think that gives us a little more responsibility in the matter. Not to mention, I think men are generally a lot more willing to have than women are.

The idea is even more perverse when you factor in the fact that if the man is equally as drunk, than he is STILL to blame. So, both parties are equally unable to consent, but, the man is still liable for actions he does, while the woman is simply excused for any role she has.

Being drunk doesn't make people stupid; people use intoxication as an excuse to be stupid. While you should never take advantage of a drunk person, and being drunk is no excuse to force yourself on somebody, I don't see the problem with two drunk people having drunk sex. Besides, drunk sex is fun.

This view is the antithesis of feminism. It furthers the notion that woman and men be treated differently by the law, and that women are helpless victims because there is a man around who should have protected her best interests, even if it was against her wishes, because, you know, the man knows what's best for her.

Feminism has nothing to do with equality (I don't care what Emma Watson says on the subject). It's all about jealousy. Feminists want what men have: power. That's why they're always clawing their way up the social ladder, and why they always put men down.

In the West, men and women already have the same rights and opportunities. If I choose not to use mine, the rest of you shouldn't suffer for it.

Df0512 : If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: Yes because we are generally that stupid, and want everybody to see us as rapists, or potential rapists. Oh what fun it is, to be considered such sleaze balls, that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us.

Df0512: A woman in the same position probably won't have the same response.

The Fool: And you base this on?

Df0512: The fact is that there is a difference.

The Fool: Is it irrelevant difference?

Df0512: Men have the size and strength to obtain sex pretty much when we want.

The Fool: Slowdown...Size and strength also creates intimidation, and thus dis-trust, hostility, and lack of sympathy, especially when combined with masculinity. Those bastards.<(89)

Df0512: I think that gives us a little more responsibility in the matter.

The Fool: As argued.<(8D)

The Heart of ControversyThe controversy about rape and consent, is not in regards to violent rape, as it is obvious that one is refusing to have sex if they're physically trying to get away.

The heart of the injustice is that if two people are just as drunk as each other, and are both in no mind state to give what we consider a legitimate consent, then why is the guy guilty for rape any more than the woman is guilty for rape.

And the second problem, is well how does a man, defend against simply being accused of rape, in a society with rape hysteria, were one has not recorded consent. Even if one record consent you have to show that it was consent to that particular sexual episode. Thus you basically you have to record yourself having sex. But even then, one can claim that they consented for one episode and not another, which wasn't recorded.

Mo Key QuestionsHow does a man defend against woman, who simply regretted the next day, and is embarrassed, or in denial, and so accuses the man of rape?

Or how does a man defend against being blackmailed, with being accused of rape, when they are afraid to go to court, because it can ruin their lives, and they may have no way to defend against it anyways?

How does a male professor at school, defend against a student who claims, that that he offered marks for sex?

How does one escape this stigma, and harm to one's social life when being falsely accused?

Feminist downplay the percent of false accusations, and make the definition of rape evermore encompassing, and watered down, while promoting the denial of due process, that is, we should just "believe" women based off their subjective experience, and that the man must prove how he's not guilty, before being considered innocent.

There is currently is no existing efficient legal criteria from which one can prove they did not rape somebody, other than having an alibi, showing that they were even in the same locations, which of course is not the conditions where one would be accused.

Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

Social BlasphemyFor some reason it is blasphemy, and considered blaming the victim, if women are to take any blame for false accusations. Even though false accusers, are the cause of false accusations. Another problem is that there's no real legal penalty for false accusations. And I'm sure that penalties for false accusation, would prevent women from coming forward. But false accusations themselves are a form of abuse, especially when they are in succession. By that I mean, someone who is been known to have been accused of rape, whether falsely or not, is now more susceptible to being thought a rapist, if they are accused in succession. And there's simply no protection from that. Not that anybody cares.

The point is that it's such a sticky situation, and men have the responsibility forced upon them. Okay now perhaps this is a necessary practicality, but what positive trade-off do we get for having to take all the responsibility. Perhaps shaming, degradation and disposability for thinking so selfishly.

Df0512: Not to mention, I think men are generally a lot more willing to have than women are.

The Fool: I guess that makes us more guilty. Perhaps it depends on who the guy is. Perhaps some guys tend to attract many woman sexually, while other ones get none, or have to pay for sex. I guess we pay either way, whether it is simply in the form of risk.<(8O)On the other hand almost every woman can get at least some deadbeat to have sex with them.

Against The Ideologist

Damn Deadbeats

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 10/17/2014 7:13:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:Suppose a man and woman are at home, and the woman freely drinks three glasses of wine in a short amount of time. Her blood alcohol content is 0.11. Now imagine the following scenarios:1. She gets mad at the man and attacks him, unproked. (let's say she is just an angry drunk) The police are called.2. She gets in her car and goes to the store. She gets pulled over by the police or has an accident.3. She tells the man she wants sex. They have sex.

As a society and especially in the feminist community, why is it that ONLY in the last example the woman, as a society, we claim the woman is a victim and the consequences of her actions are not her own doing? We do not blame the man for the domestic assault or the DWI. But, we expect and require the man to negate the woman's thoughts and desires, reinforcing the idea that woman are victims and need men to protect them.The idea is even more perverse when you factor in the fact that if the man is equally as drunk, than he is STILL to blame. So, both parties are equally unable to consent, but, the man is still liable for actions he does, while the woman is simply excused for any role she has.

This view is the antithesis of feminism. It furthers the notion that woman and men be treated differently by the law, and that women are helpless victims because there is a man around who should have protected her best interests, even if it was against her wishes, because, you know, the man knows what's best for her.

"Isms" are stupid because people who don't like part of their agenda try to associate them with their most radical members (feminism and socialism are two obvious examples). I don't think most people calling themselves "feminists" believe in the one drop = rape rule.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

^ This is what police is in India. It is not a competent group of socially conscious citizens who aspire for justice.

||"Go to a pub in South Delhi. Go to Greater Kailash where there is free entry for girls. (In these places you"ll find girls who want to do "it" for Rs 1,000. They will drink and also have sex with you. The day somebody uses force, it becomes rape)."||

||If girls don"t stay within their boundaries, if they don"t wear appropriate clothes, then naturally there is attraction. This attraction makes men aggressive, prompting them to just do it||

||The girl"s mother is divorced. She"s living with another man from the Yadav community. She"s 48 whereas the man is 28. It"s inevitable the two daughters will be wayward, isn"t it?||

Cases registered by these people are definitely going to be investigated properly.

Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

^ This is what police is in India. It is not a competent group of socially conscious citizens who aspire for justice.

||"Go to a pub in South Delhi. Go to Greater Kailash where there is free entry for girls. (In these places you"ll find girls who want to do "it" for Rs 1,000. They will drink and also have sex with you. The day somebody uses force, it becomes rape)."||

||If girls don"t stay within their boundaries, if they don"t wear appropriate clothes, then naturally there is attraction. This attraction makes men aggressive, prompting them to just do it||

||The girl"s mother is divorced. She"s living with another man from the Yadav community. She"s 48 whereas the man is 28. It"s inevitable the two daughters will be wayward, isn"t it?||

The Fool: Are the police acting, bad or they just have "Wrong views." I'm confused here?

Cermank : Cases registered by these people are definitely going to be investigated properly. 53% false rape cases seems legit.

The Fool: I can't tell if you being sarcastic right now.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

It's not easy to come out as a rape victim in misogynist societies. The stigma associated with that follows you throughout your life. Complainants turning hostile doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen, there are literally myriad of reasons why they would take back their complaints. Stigma, social exclusion, ridicule, employ-ability/ negative impact on family life, lots LOTS of reasons. Rape complaint being false is a small minority. Minimal.

^ This is what police is in India. It is not a competent group of socially conscious citizens who aspire for justice.

||"Go to a pub in South Delhi. Go to Greater Kailash where there is free entry for girls. (In these places you"ll find girls who want to do "it" for Rs 1,000. They will drink and also have sex with you. The day somebody uses force, it becomes rape)."||

||If girls don"t stay within their boundaries, if they don"t wear appropriate clothes, then naturally there is attraction. This attraction makes men aggressive, prompting them to just do it||

||The girl"s mother is divorced. She"s living with another man from the Yadav community. She"s 48 whereas the man is 28. It"s inevitable the two daughters will be wayward, isn"t it?||

The Fool: Are the police acting, bad or they just have "Wrong views." I'm confused here?

The police are the people who carry out the 'investigation' to determine whether or not the rape was 'real'. And these are their views. So, for example in the last case, where a girl was raped- somehow the fact that her mother was a divorcee who was dating a man half her age seems (to them) enough evidence that they were wayward. And wayward girls don't get raped, they supposedly consent. So, case closed, not a rape, false rape case.

Cermank : Cases registered by these people are definitely going to be investigated properly. 53% false rape cases seems legit.

The Fool: I can't tell if you being sarcastic right now.

I am. There is no way the 53% false rape statistic implies 53% willfully wrong- accusatory cases. India still is undergoing first wave feminism, and stats like that are dangerous when not understood fully.

Because only in the last case is she doing something that requires the consent of two people to accomplish. And that's true even for men. A man wanting sex when drunk isn't a decision he makes in full cognizance of his abilities and should be refused.

So, if they are both drunk, why is one held responsible?However, if the issue is consent to contract (which is what consent is - a verbal contract to have sex), then am I not a thief if I sell a pizza to a woman who is fall down drunk?Can a woman say "I was drunk" and refuse to pay for online purchases?Or excuse herself for child abuse, domestic assault, or any other crime?Can she use it as her defense for her role in, say, a bank robbery (though I am sure she wouldn't be fall down drunk, but maybe on some other drug)?

The society's response, as you correctly pointed out, is different in both cases. Mainly because it perceives male and female sexuality differently. Women are considered to be receptors, and not sexual beings, they don't like sex for the sake of liking sex (which is a gross generalization, obviously). So when they consent to sex under the effect of alcohol, it is assumed to be because they are not in control of their neural system. Men are initiators, so them wanting sex under the effect of alcohol doesn't seem so far fetched.

Which is bullsht, of course. I know of men who deeply regretted the sexual 'conquests' they had under the influence of alcohol, so much that they felt violated afterwards. Having sex with someone intoxicated is just something no one should do, no matter the gender.

So, do you agree with me? Is it anti-feminist to suggest woman should be held to a different standard?I'm not sure what you are saying.

"Isms" are stupid because people who don't like part of their agenda try to associate them with their most radical members (feminism and socialism are two obvious examples). I don't think most people calling themselves "feminists" believe in the one drop = rape rule.

I didn't say they did.My point is that the man needs to look at the woman, and take control of the situation, up to and including telling the woman her opinion of herself (I'm not drunk) is invalid. Further, that the woman needs to be protected by the man, because of her willful choices. All the freedoms with none of the responsibility, right?

Further, if both people are drunk, then somehow, the man is still at fault, for something the woman instigated, and the man ought to be just as much a victim as she is, if they are both drunk, since neither is responsible for the things they say or do while drunk.

Because only in the last case is she doing something that requires the consent of two people to accomplish. And that's true even for men. A man wanting sex when drunk isn't a decision he makes in full cognizance of his abilities and should be refused.

So, if they are both drunk, why is one held responsible?

I'm not sure this is true, empirically, tbh. I haven't come across cases like this, in any case. Its usually the one not drunk who is blamed.

However, if the issue is consent to contract (which is what consent is - a verbal contract to have sex), then am I not a thief if I sell a pizza to a woman who is fall down drunk?

its kinda a non issue. eating extra pizza doesn't hurt anyone, although you are selling to someone who might not have made the same decision if she was not drunk.

Can a woman say "I was drunk" and refuse to pay for online purchases?

she can cancel it when she is not drunk, tbh. that's more prudent.

Or excuse herself for child abuse, domestic assault, or any other crime?

nope

Can she use it as her defense for her role in, say, a bank robbery (though I am sure she wouldn't be fall down drunk, but maybe on some other drug)?

nope.

no one can, to be clear. not even men.

The society's response, as you correctly pointed out, is different in both cases. Mainly because it perceives male and female sexuality differently. Women are considered to be receptors, and not sexual beings, they don't like sex for the sake of liking sex (which is a gross generalization, obviously). So when they consent to sex under the effect of alcohol, it is assumed to be because they are not in control of their neural system. Men are initiators, so them wanting sex under the effect of alcohol doesn't seem so far fetched.

Which is bullsht, of course. I know of men who deeply regretted the sexual 'conquests' they had under the influence of alcohol, so much that they felt violated afterwards. Having sex with someone intoxicated is just something no one should do, no matter the gender.

So, do you agree with me? Is it anti-feminist to suggest woman should be held to a different standard?I'm not sure what you are saying.

Yeah. If both of them are drunk, definitely anti feminist to suggest men should be more responsible. If one of them is, the blame is on the one who isn't. I was explaining why society responds differently to drunk men and women.

At 10/17/2014 7:13:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:Suppose a man and woman are at home, and the woman freely drinks three glasses of wine in a short amount of time. Her blood alcohol content is 0.11. Now imagine the following scenarios:1. She gets mad at the man and attacks him, unproked. (let's say she is just an angry drunk) The police are called.2. She gets in her car and goes to the store. She gets pulled over by the police or has an accident.3. She tells the man she wants sex. They have sex.

As a society and especially in the feminist community, why is it that ONLY in the last example the woman, as a society, we claim the woman is a victim and the consequences of her actions are not her own doing? We do not blame the man for the domestic assault or the DWI. But, we expect and require the man to negate the woman's thoughts and desires, reinforcing the idea that woman are victims and need men to protect them.The idea is even more perverse when you factor in the fact that if the man is equally as drunk, than he is STILL to blame. So, both parties are equally unable to consent, but, the man is still liable for actions he does, while the woman is simply excused for any role she has.

This view is the antithesis of feminism. It furthers the notion that woman and men be treated differently by the law, and that women are helpless victims because there is a man around who should have protected her best interests, even if it was against her wishes, because, you know, the man knows what's best for her.

This is the most convincing takedown of feminist 'rape culture' I've ever seen. Great job. I doubt this will change any feminist's opinions on the matter, however, as feminism is not beholden to facts or logic.

Df0512 : If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: Yes because we are generally that stupid, and want everybody to see us as rapists, or potential rapists. Oh what fun it is, to be considered such sleaze balls, that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us.

I try and use words like usually and probably to avoid an absolute generalization. But do I believe that the majority of men would do exactly what they said they would, hell yes. Maybe you wouldn't and the men you surround yourself with wouldn't, but I know enough about men to know that most would. However, I don't see how that makes man be seen as a rapist, potential rapist or a sleaze ball or stupid. Why would a guy be a sleaze ball for having sex with one or two consenting women? As my scenario describes. That sounds like a generalization.

Df0512: A woman in the same position probably won't have the same response.

The Fool: And you base this on?

My opinion. If you disagree you disagree. But I think I've been through enough psych classes and know enough women to at least formulate that much about them.

Df0512: The fact is that there is a difference.

The Fool: Is it irrelevant difference?

Yes.

Df0512: Men have the size and strength to obtain sex pretty much when we want.

The Fool: Slowdown...Size and strength also creates intimidation, and thus dis-trust, hostility, and lack of sympathy, especially when combined with masculinity. Those bastards.<(89)

Size and strength can create those things but they do not inherently. I am talking about a mans ability to overpower a woman that is all. Not all that other jargon your talking about. I dont see your point.

Df0512: I think that gives us a little more responsibility in the matter.

The Fool: As argued.<(8D)

The Heart of ControversyThe controversy about rape and consent, is not in regards to violent rape, as it is obvious that one is refusing to have sex if they're physically trying to get away.

The heart of the injustice is that if two people are just as drunk as each other, and are both in no mind state to give what we consider a legitimate consent, then why is the guy guilty for rape any more than the woman is guilty for rape.

And the second problem, is well how does a man, defend against simply being accused of rape, in a society with rape hysteria, were one has not recorded consent. Even if one record consent you have to show that it was consent to that particular sexual episode. Thus you basically you have to record yourself having sex. But even then, one can claim that they consented for one episode and not another, which wasn't recorded.

Mo Key QuestionsHow does a man defend against woman, who simply regretted the next day, and is embarrassed, or in denial, and so accuses the man of rape?

Or how does a man defend against being blackmailed, with being accused of rape, when they are afraid to go to court, because it can ruin their lives, and they may have no way to defend against it anyways?

How does a male professor at school, defend against a student who claims, that that he offered marks for sex?

How does one escape this stigma, and harm to one's social life when being falsely accused?

Feminist downplay the percent of false accusations, and make the definition of rape evermore encompassing, and watered down, while promoting the denial of due process, that is, we should just "believe" women based off their subjective experience, and that the man must prove how he's not guilty, before being considered innocent.

There is currently is no existing efficient legal criteria from which one can prove they did not rape somebody, other than having an alibi, showing that they were even in the same locations, which of course is not the conditions where one would be accused.

Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

Social BlasphemyFor some reason it is blasphemy, and considered blaming the victim, if women are to take any blame for false accusations. Even though false accusers, are the cause of false accusations. Another problem is that there's no real legal penalty for false accusations. And I'm sure that penalties for false accusation, would prevent women from coming forward. But false accusations themselves are a form of abuse, especially when they are in succession. By that I mean, someone who is been known to have been accused of rape, whether falsely or not, is now more susceptible to being thought a rapist, if they are accused in succession. And there's simply no protection from that. Not that anybody cares.

The point is that it's such a sticky situation, and men have the responsibility forced upon them. Okay now perhaps this is a necessary practicality, but what positive trade-off do we get for having to take all the responsibility. Perhaps shaming, degradation and disposability for thinking so selfishly.

Df0512: Not to mention, I think men are generally a lot more willing to have than women are.

The Fool: I guess that makes us more guilty. Perhaps it depends on who the guy is. Perhaps some guys tend to attract many woman sexually, while other ones get none, or have to pay for sex. I guess we pay either way, whether it is simply in the form of risk.<(8O)On the other hand almost every woman can get at least some deadbeat to have sex with them.

Against The Ideologist

Damn Deadbeats

Exactly, that is the ideology. We do pay either way. I'm not defending it or saying it's right. Which is why I didn't bother reading all that other crap you put to prove me wrong or educate me I'm not sure. You speak as if I'm siding with the ideology. I'm just giving an answer as to why it is the way it is.

Bluesteel:"Isms" are stupid because people who don't like part of their agenda try to associate them with their most radical members (feminism and socialism are two obvious examples).

The Fool: And that's why the "isms" are stupid..<(8d)

Does it not follow by virtue of being of a shared category, that they are therefore associated? I mean those of a kind do influence each other, and in particular regard to feminism and radical feminism, "rape culture" is a rad fem construct. Right? Therefore, in all possible examples this is the very sort of example in which it makes the most sense to associate them. Right?

After all, radical feminism is now much more dissolved throughout mainstream feminism, they just don't identify themselves as radicals. Right?

Bluesteel: I don't think most people calling themselves "feminists" believe in the one drop = rape rule.

The Fool: They just support it, and continue to broaden and water down the definition over time, while promoting the denial of due process. I'm sure they wouldn't think of themselves as bigots either.<(8O)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Bluesteel:"Isms" are stupid because people who don't like part of their agenda try to associate them with their most radical members (feminism and socialism are two obvious examples).

The Fool: And that's why the "isms" are stupid..<(8d)

Does it not follow by virtue of being of a shared category, that they are therefore associated? I mean those of a kind do influence each other, and in particular regard to feminism and radical feminism, "rape culture" is a rad fem construct. Right? Therefore, in all possible examples this is the very sort of example in which it makes the most sense to associate them. Right?

If a group is defined by its most radical members then the Republicans are all neo-Nazis and the Democrats are all eco-terrorists. The fringes of a movement do not define the center.

After all, radical feminism is now much more dissolved throughout mainstream feminism, they just don't identify themselves as radicals. Right?

Bluesteel: I don't think most people calling themselves "feminists" believe in the one drop = rape rule.

The Fool: They just support it, and continue to broaden and water down the definition over time, while promoting the denial of due process. I'm sure they wouldn't think of themselves as bigots either.<(8O)

Bluesteel:"Isms" are stupid because people who don't like part of their agenda try to associate them with their most radical members (feminism and socialism are two obvious examples).

The Fool: And that's why the "isms" are stupid..<(8d)

Does it not follow by virtue of being of a shared category, that they are therefore associated? I mean those of a kind do influence each other, and in particular regard to feminism and radical feminism, "rape culture" is a rad fem construct. Right? Therefore, in all possible examples this is the very sort of example in which it makes the most sense to associate them. Right?

If a group is defined by its most radical members then the Republicans are all neo-Nazis and the Democrats are all eco-terrorists. The fringes of a movement do not define the center.

The Fool: An association is not a definition, but simply a relation by shared attributes. Radical feminism, and feminism are part of the same Feminist movement, and both share the influence behind it. Therefore the direction of movement itself is going to steer somewhere between the two; Equality and misandry, but inevitably, towards misandry.

It is no secret that "radical feminists" generally consider all forms of heterosexual sex as rape. And "rape culture" is an old radical feminists notion that has become adopted by the mainstream.

E.g."The term rape culture was first used in the 1970s by"second wave feminists, and was applied to contemporary American culture as a whole."

"The first published use of the term appears to have been in 1974 in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson for the New York ------->>Radical Feminists.<<<----"

Radical feminism is now much more dissolved throughout mainstream feminism, they just don't identify themselves as radicals. But they are around, and very influential, as more and more Radical feminist theories are being absorbed and adopted into the mainstream over time. None of which are wholly new, but are just being put to use..http://i.imgur.com...

Perhaps you disagree?

Bluesteel: I don't think most people calling themselves "feminists" believe in the one drop = rape rule.

The Fool: They just support it, and continue to broaden and water down the definition over time, while promoting the denial of due process. I'm sure they wouldn't think of themselves as bigots either.<(8O)

Against The Ideologist

Don't take this personally, I'm Intentionally being hard up, but I'm not that serious. My arguments are serious, but I mean it's in good fun, and respect.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Df0512 : If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: Yes because we are generally that stupid, and want everybody to see us as rapists, or potential rapists. Oh what fun it is, to be considered such sleaze balls, that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us.

I try and use words like usually and probably to avoid an absolute generalization.

The Fool: I accounted for that by saying "generally", as in stereo-typically, as opposed to all or universally.

Df0512: But do I believe that the majority of men would do exactly what they said they would, hell yes.

The Fool: You missed a keyword. IS.

E.g

RE:Df0512:If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and [IS] taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women ,it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: So I read it as, if a man gets drunk and [has] taken advantage of a woman or group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward. Lol..Big difference.<(8P)

Df0512: :Maybe you wouldn't and the men you surround yourself with wouldn't, but I know enough about men to know that most would. However, I don't see how that makes man be seen as a rapist, potential rapist or a sleaze ball or stupid. Why would a guy be a sleaze ball for having sex with one or two consenting women? As my scenario describes. That sounds like a generalization.

Df0512: A woman in the same position probably won't have the same response.

The Fool: And you base this on?

My opinion. If you disagree you disagree. But I think I've been through enough psych classes and know enough women to at least formulate that much about them.

Df0512: The fact is that there is a difference.

The Fool: Is it [a relevant] difference?

Yes.

Df0512: Men have the size and strength to obtain sex pretty much when we want.

The Fool: Slowdown...Size and strength also creates intimidation, and thus dis-trust, hostility, and lack of sympathy, especially when combined with masculinity. Those bastards.<(89)

Size and strength can create those things but they do not inherently. I am talking about a mans ability to overpower a woman that is all. Not all that other jargon your talking about. I dont see your point.

Df0512: I think that gives us a little more responsibility in the matter.

The Fool: As argued.<(8D)

The Heart of ControversyThe controversy about rape and consent, is not in regards to violent rape, as it is obvious that one is refusing to have sex if they're physically trying to get away.

The heart of the injustice is that if two people are just as drunk as each other, and are both in no mind state to give what we consider a legitimate consent, then why is the guy guilty for rape any more than the woman is guilty for rape.

And the second problem, is well how does a man, defend against simply being accused of rape, in a society with rape hysteria, were one has not recorded consent. Even if one record consent you have to show that it was consent to that particular sexual episode. Thus you basically you have to record yourself having sex. But even then, one can claim that they consented for one episode and not another, which wasn't recorded.

Mo Key QuestionsHow does a man defend against woman, who simply regretted the next day, and is embarrassed, or in denial, and so accuses the man of rape?

Or how does a man defend against being blackmailed, with being accused of rape, when they are afraid to go to court, because it can ruin their lives, and they may have no way to defend against it anyways?

How does a male professor at school, defend against a student who claims, that that he offered marks for sex?

How does one escape this stigma, and harm to one's social life when being falsely accused?

Feminist downplay the percent of false accusations, and make the definition of rape evermore encompassing, and watered down, while promoting the denial of due process, that is, we should just "believe" women based off their subjective experience, and that the man must prove how he's not guilty, before being considered innocent.

There is currently is no existing efficient legal criteria from which one can prove they did not rape somebody, other than having an alibi, showing that they were even in the same locations, which of course is not the conditions where one would be accused.

Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

Social BlasphemyFor some reason it is blasphemy, and considered blaming the victim, if women are to take any blame for false accusations. Even though false accusers, are the cause of false accusations. Another problem is that there's no real legal penalty for false accusations. And I'm sure that penalties for false accusation, would prevent women from coming forward. But false accusations themselves are a form of abuse, especially when they are in succession. By that I mean, someone who is been known to have been accused of rape, whether falsely or not, is now more susceptible to being thought a rapist, if they are accused in succession. And there's simply no protection from that. Not that anybody cares.

The point is that it's such a sticky situation, and men have the responsibility forced upon them. Okay now perhaps this is a necessary practicality, but what positive trade-off do we get for having to take all the responsibility. Perhaps shaming, degradation and disposability for thinking so selfishly.

Df0512: Not to mention, I think men are generally a lot more willing to have than women are.

The Fool: I guess that makes us more guilty. Perhaps it depends on who the guy is. Perhaps some guys tend to attract many woman sexually, while other ones get none, or have to pay for sex. I guess we pay either way, whether it is simply in the form of risk.<(8O)On the other hand almost every woman can get at least some deadbeat to have sex with them.

Df0512:: Exactly, that is the ideology. We do pay either way. I'm not defending it or saying it's right. Which is why I didn't bother reading all that other crap you put to prove me wrong or educate me I'm not sure. You speak as if I'm siding with the ideology. I'm just giving an answer as to why it is the way it is.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Df0512 : If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: Yes because we are generally that stupid, and want everybody to see us as rapists, or potential rapists. Oh what fun it is, to be considered such sleaze balls, that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us.

I try and use words like usually and probably to avoid an absolute generalization.

The Fool: I accounted for that by saying "generally", as in stereo-typically, as opposed to all or universally.

But then you went and said "that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us". So you seem to assume I was generalizing.

Df0512: But do I believe that the majority of men would do exactly what they said they would, hell yes.

The Fool: You missed a keyword. IS.

E.g

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and [IS] taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women ,it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: So I read it as, if a man gets drunk and [has] taken advantage of a woman or group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward. Lol..Big difference.<(8P)

The Fool... What you just said does not make any sense. Has doesn't even fit in that sentence I wrote and adding is would not change the meaning. I did not miss a keyword. You added one.

" If a man gets drunk and [IS] taken advantage of by a woman"

Is the exact same as saying

"If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman"

You just took out the word by to make the word has fit grammatically. It sounds like you just skimmed that sentence and took it as a smoking gun or something. Regardless don't blame me for that mistake.

Df0512 : If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: Yes because we are generally that stupid, and want everybody to see us as rapists, or potential rapists. Oh what fun it is, to be considered such sleaze balls, that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us.

I try and use words like usually and probably to avoid an absolute generalization.

The Fool: I accounted for that by saying "generally", as in stereo-typically, as opposed to all or universally.

But then you went and said "that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us". So you seem to assume I was generalizing.

The Fool: But not an absolute generalization..

Df0512: But do I believe that the majority of men would do exactly what they said they would, hell yes.

The Fool: You missed a keyword. IS.

E.g

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and [IS] taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women ,it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: So I read it as, if a man gets drunk and [has] taken advantage of a woman or group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward. Lol..Big difference.<(8P)

The Fool... What you just said does not make any sense. Has doesn't even fit in that sentence I wrote and adding is would not change the meaning. I did not miss a keyword. You added one.

The Fool: You're right. My bad..<(8O)

How the hell that I do That?

" If a man gets drunk and [IS] taken advantage of by a woman"

Is the exact same as saying

"If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman"

You just took out the word by to make the word has fit grammatically. It sounds like you just skimmed that sentence and took it as a smoking gun or something. Regardless don't blame me for that mistake.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Df0512 : If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: Yes because we are generally that stupid, and want everybody to see us as rapists, or potential rapists. Oh what fun it is, to be considered such sleaze balls, that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us.

I try and use words like usually and probably to avoid an absolute generalization.

The Fool: I accounted for that by saying "generally", as in stereo-typically, as opposed to all or universally.

But then you went and said "that one wouldn't even have a second thought in making that generalization about us". So you seem to assume I was generalizing.

The Fool: But not an absolute generalization..

Fine.

Df0512: But do I believe that the majority of men would do exactly what they said they would, hell yes.

The Fool: You missed a keyword. IS.

E.g

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

RE:Df0512: If a man gets drunk and [IS] taken advantage of by a woman or even a group of women ,it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward.

The Fool: So I read it as, if a man gets drunk and [has] taken advantage of a woman or group of women, it's usually a fun story to tell your friends afterward. Lol..Big difference.<(8P)

The Fool... What you just said does not make any sense. Has doesn't even fit in that sentence I wrote and adding is would not change the meaning. I did not miss a keyword. You added one.

"Isms" are stupid because people who don't like part of their agenda try to associate them with their most radical members (feminism and socialism are two obvious examples). I don't think most people calling themselves "feminists" believe in the one drop = rape rule.

I didn't say they did.My point is that the man needs to look at the woman, and take control of the situation, up to and including telling the woman her opinion of herself (I'm not drunk) is invalid. Further, that the woman needs to be protected by the man, because of her willful choices. All the freedoms with none of the responsibility, right?

Further, if both people are drunk, then somehow, the man is still at fault, for something the woman instigated, and the man ought to be just as much a victim as she is, if they are both drunk, since neither is responsible for the things they say or do while drunk.

This is what I find anti-feminist.

The Fool: That's not what Anti-feminism is. Anti-feminist is a view that rejects key theories in feminism. But not gender equality.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: That's not what Anti-feminism is. Anti-feminist is a view that rejects key theories in feminism.

*But not [necessarily] gender equality.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

Your RhetoricThe Fool: I didn"t understand what you meant because your response didn't make sense. It's not obvious enough to warrant a rhetorical response if you're not sexist.

Firstly, calling an entire society misogynistic, is too much of an overgeneralization, and an abuse of the term. Some people in a society may be misogynistic, but that doesn't mean that the entire society is misogynistic, or that the net sum is misogynistic overall. These are not facts, but feminist fictions. Don't get me wrong it's popular for us to think in that way, and I'm sure a lot of women need help, but there are usually advantages and disadvantages, while feminist research tends to only count the advantages of men, and the disadvantages of women. Its research, is not nonbiased. Despite what the definition in the dictionary is.

Secondly, becoming hostile, does imply guilt by the complainant. I'm sure, there is some discrepancy, but even if we assume that there is a 15% to 20% discrepancy which is more than generous. 35 to 37% is still ridiculously high false accusation Rate. And it's probably only about 5% off.

Cermank: It's not easy to come out as a rape victim in misogynist societies.

The Fool: that's not an argument, nor is it hard at all to say that somebody raped you. If that was true, there wouldn't be so many false accusations. Feminist have been lying, about how rare false accusations are.

The feminist statistics, in regards to unreported rapes, includes, things that fall under the definition of rape in the study, which includes things people don't consider rape, in other words "normal sex", And then they use such manipulative at the statistics, as their justification. The fact that they get away with that is an example of misandry, not misogyny.

People who falsely accused of rape are abusers. And the fact that there's not even a penalty, despite the fact that it can ruin a man's life, is an example of misandry not misogyny.

Even when, it's women who falsely accuse men of rape, they, and women are still considered the victims and not the men who they falsely accused. That's misandry, not misogyny. I know you don't care about us, but I'm to letting you know.

Cermank: Complainants turning hostile doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen, there are literally myriad of reasons why they would take back their complaints.

The Fool: There's a Myriad of reasons for anything, but that's doesn't tell us anything about the facts.

Cermank: Stigma, social exclusion, ridicule, employ-ability/ negative impact on family life, lots LOTS of reasons. Rape complaint being false is a small minority. Minimal.

The Fool: If a woman accuses a man of rape, she gets lots of social support, pity, sympathy and support even if there is no evidence. So don't give me that feminist crap. You're using feminist tactics right now, by stating reasons, theories and appealing to pity without facts.

Against The Ideologist

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Cermank: The police are the people who carry out the 'investigation' to determine whether or not the rape was 'real'. And these are their views.

The Fool: I'm not for suppressing people's views, to agree with feminism. I'm pretty educated on the types of tactics and validity of feminist theory, which is slim to none.

Cermank: So, for example in the last case, where a girl was raped- somehow the fact that her mother was a divorcee who was dating a man half her age seems (to them) enough evidence that they were wayward.

The Fool: What she actually raped? I don't do the guilty before proven innocent thing, that's immoral.

The Fool: That's exactly what it implies.(using the word "implication" properly) What else could it imply?

Cermank : India still is undergoing first wave feminism, and stats like that are dangerous when not understood fully.

The Fool: This was the worst argument I've ever heard. It's not necessarily going to go through waves. That's a feminist propaganda. You do realize feminist theory is not necessarily based on fact? It's an ideology.

Nonwestern cultures, with different culture and religions are not going to go to the same kind of transitions as we did.

Most of the problem in India has been caused by Feminist themselves, as they have in the last few years launched massive propaganda campaigns to sell the urgency for feminist need in India and to the Western world. In doing so, feminism has not only create hysteria and distrust here, but in a Third World country which is extremely populated and does not have the development and/or resources to handle such destabilization.

The culture is not going to react the same way, especially since there's so much poverty that people will be much more desperate to use such things to their advantage. And you're so washed up in feminism that you just assume, that men are bad, or that our statistics can be generalized onto that culture, or that cops corruption would not work both ways. Did you know that gangs in India,have been using rape accusation to attack other gangs?

You don't think the same corrupt cops are going to engage with such people in blackmail, against men and woman, just to extort money? Yes, this will hurt a lot of woman who need to be heard, and it's too bad, but feminism is partly responsible, I am sure they will then just use that excuse to oppress more men after ward. Either way a lot of people will suffer, who mightn't not otherwise suffered and I believe there it's going to cause a lot more tension between genders, in both countries before it gets better.

Against The Ideologist

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

Your RhetoricThe Fool: I didn"t understand what you meant because your response didn't make sense. It's not obvious enough to warrant a rhetorical response if you're not sexist.

Firstly, calling an entire society misogynistic, is too much of an overgeneralization, and an abuse of the term. Some people in a society may be misogynistic, but that doesn't mean that the entire society is misogynistic, or that the net sum is misogynistic overall. These are not facts, but feminist fictions. Don't get me wrong it's popular for us to think in that way, and I'm sure a lot of women need help, but there are usually advantages and disadvantages, while feminist research tends to only count the advantages of men, and the disadvantages of women. Its research, is not nonbiased. Despite what the definition in the dictionary is.

Your rebuttal is that 'not all people are misogynists'? No offense, but what exactly do you know about Indian society? Of course not all the people are misogynists, but they are more of an exception to a rule rather than a rule. You are extrapolating your observations to a society that is very different from what you're used to.

And I'm not even talking about advantages and disadvantages (I can't really think of advantages that are contingent on being a female atm, except maybe that you're cuddled and protected a lot more because its dangerous for you out there- which isn't a advantage persay), I'm talking about rape. A rape victim is marginalized and stimitized, and thus its not easy for her/ him to come out. You haven't really addressed that. The perpetual belief that rape victims 'invite' rape is pervasive. As the link I shared showed quite clearly.

Secondly, becoming hostile, does imply guilt by the complainant. I'm sure, there is some discrepancy, but even if we assume that there is a 15% to 20% discrepancy which is more than generous. 35 to 37% is still ridiculously high false accusation Rate. And it's probably only about 5% off.

what are you even on man

Just randomly allotting percentages based on your mood, that's not how stats work. Becoming hostile does not imply guilt, by any stretch of imagination. And the feeling of guilt does not imply actual guilt, in any way. A girl can feel guilty for inciting her perpetuator, doesn't mean she was guilty. And you literally ignored all other factors that govern a rape victim in India, so i dunno how to proceed.

Cermank: It's not easy to come out as a rape victim in misogynist societies.

The Fool: that's not an argument, nor is it hard at all to say that somebody raped you. If that was true, there wouldn't be so many false accusations. Feminist have been lying, about how rare false accusations are.

yeah, saying you were raped when you're definitely going to be stigmitized for it is something you'd want to do. because logic.

The feminist statistics, in regards to unreported rapes, includes, things that fall under the definition of rape in the study, which includes things people don't consider rape, in other words "normal sex", And then they use such manipulative at the statistics, as their justification. The fact that they get away with that is an example of misandry, not misogyny.

I didn't even give you a stat on false rape accusitions, I gave you EXACT QUOTES by defenders of justice in India who talk like they are on redpill. In a metropolitan, so the views of police in other areas would be worse.

People who falsely accused of rape are abusers. And the fact that there's not even a penalty, despite the fact that it can ruin a man's life, is an example of misandry not misogyny.

Even when, it's women who falsely accuse men of rape, they, and women are still considered the victims and not the men who they falsely accused. That's misandry, not misogyny. I know you don't care about us, but I'm to letting you know.

dude, i am a MRA. I know the stuff you've accusing people of. Being a MRA and a feminist isn't mutually exclusive. I'm letting you know that India is in serious need of feminism. EVEN MRA in India agree to this. There are obviously some unintended consequences, like false rape cases but they are so minimal that addressing them is worse. MRA in India have more serious charges, like male rape being legally recognized, for example. Or getting adequate representation during a divorce and stuff like that.

Cermank: Complainants turning hostile doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen, there are literally myriad of reasons why they would take back their complaints.

The Fool: There's a Myriad of reasons for anything, but that's doesn't tell us anything about the facts.

Exactly. you, however, seem to be pretty sure about the facts.

Cermank: Stigma, social exclusion, ridicule, employ-ability/ negative impact on family life, lots LOTS of reasons. Rape complaint being false is a small minority. Minimal.

The Fool: If a woman accuses a man of rape, she gets lots of social support, pity, sympathy and support even if there is no evidence. So don't give me that feminist crap. You're using feminist tactics right now, by stating reasons, theories and appealing to pity without facts.

dude, India. That's the point I'm trying to make. It is still undergoing first wave feminism, and except some high profile cases which incite public sympathy, there's still a 'she-asked-for-it' mentality. As was evidenced by the sting. And a lot LOT of politician remarks, which I can easily produce, but I'm not sure it would help.

Cermank: The police are the people who carry out the 'investigation' to determine whether or not the rape was 'real'. And these are their views.

The Fool: I'm not for suppressing people's views, to agree with feminism. I'm pretty educated on the types of tactics and validity of feminist theory, which is slim to none.

wat

Cermank: So, for example in the last case, where a girl was raped- somehow the fact that her mother was a divorcee who was dating a man half her age seems (to them) enough evidence that they were wayward.

The Fool: What she actually raped? I don't do the guilty before proven innocent thing, that's immoral.

you're literally just casting aside arguments without even trying to understand them.

like what.

a girl says she was raped. police say she can't be because her 42 year old mother was living with a 22 year old.

thats not logic. thats stupid. thats the point i am making. not whether or not she was raped, i dont know. but police casting doubts on her character because HER MOTHER lives with a younger man is stupid, and you are a pathetic representation of MRA if you believe it is not.

However, that doesn't mean I caste aside the entire ideological basis of MRAs, because I know the ideology has some legit concerns, and some redpill extremists are not a legit representation of the ideology.

The Fool: That's exactly what it implies.(using the word "implication" properly) What else could it imply?

I JUST told you. That they were coerced.

Cermank : India still is undergoing first wave feminism, and stats like that are dangerous when not understood fully.

The Fool: This was the worst argument I've ever heard. It's not necessarily going to go through waves. That's a feminist propaganda. You do realize feminist theory is not necessarily based on fact? It's an ideology.

You do realize that being a ideology and being based on facts isn't mutually exclusive?

Nonwestern cultures, with different culture and religions are not going to go to the same kind of transitions as we did.

Most of the problem in India has been caused by Feminist themselves, as they have in the last few years launched massive propaganda campaigns to sell the urgency for feminist need in India and to the Western world. In doing so, feminism has not only create hysteria and distrust here, but in a Third World country which is extremely populated and does not have the development and/or resources to handle such destabilization.

The culture is not going to react the same way, especially since there's so much poverty that people will be much more desperate to use such things to their advantage. And you're so washed up in feminism that you just assume, that men are bad, or that our statistics can be generalized onto that culture, or that cops corruption would not work both ways. Did you know that gangs in India,have been using rape accusation to attack other gangs?

You don't think the same corrupt cops are going to engage with such people in blackmail, against men and woman, just to extort money? Yes, this will hurt a lot of woman who need to be heard, and it's too bad, but feminism is partly responsible, I am sure they will then just use that excuse to oppress more men after ward. Either way a lot of people will suffer, who mightn't not otherwise suffered and I believe there it's going to cause a lot more tension between genders, in both countries before it gets better.

The Fool: Meanwhile false accusations in places like India, have gone up to 53%, in the last year, particularly since women have become aware of how you easy it can be used for revenge or blackmail. Contrast that with the size of the population of India.

Your RhetoricThe Fool: I didn"t understand what you meant because your response didn't make sense. It's not obvious enough to warrant a rhetorical response if you're not sexist.

Firstly, calling an entire society misogynistic, is too much of an overgeneralization, and an abuse of the term. Some people in a society may be misogynistic, but that doesn't mean that the entire society is misogynistic, or that the net sum is misogynistic overall. These are not facts, but feminist fictions. Don't get me wrong it's popular for us to think in that way, and I'm sure a lot of women need help, but there are usually advantages and disadvantages, while feminist research tends to only count the advantages of men, and the disadvantages of women. Its research, is not nonbiased. Despite what the definition in the dictionary is.

Cermank :: Your rebuttal is that 'not all people are misogynists'?

The Fool: Are black people a misogynist race, because some black people are misogynist?If no, then the Indian society, is not a misogynist society. That's logic. Use it.

Cermank: No offense, but what exactly do you know about Indian society?

The Fool: Philosophy, religion and history. (Ad hominem fallacy)<(89)

No offense.

"Cermank: Of course not all the people are misogynists, but they are more of an exception to a rule rather than a rule. You are extrapolating your observations to a society that is very different from what you're used to.

The Fool: Strawman fallacy. You have no idea what I am used to. Your just making up stuff as you go along. Keep your feminism to yourself.

"Cermank:: And I'm not even talking about advantages and disadvantages (I can't really think of advantages that are contingent on being a female atm, except maybe that you're cuddled and protected a lot more because its dangerous for you out there- which isn't a advantage persay), I'm talking about rape.

The Fool: So it's fair to say you're not that aware of much MRA literature. Don't worry if you're around you going to hear about it.

The Fool:: : Secondly, becoming hostile, does imply guilt by the complainant. I'm sure, there is some discrepancy, but even if we assume that there is a 15% to 20% discrepancy which is more than generous. 35 to 37% is still ridiculously high false accusation Rate. And it's probably only about 5% off.

Cermank : what are you even on man

The Fool: The rag. (Adhomin fallacy)

Cermank: Just randomly allotting percentages based on your mood, that's not how stats work.

Cermank: Becoming hostile does not imply guilt, by any stretch of imagination. And the feeling of guilt does not imply actual guilt, in any way.

The Fool: Yes it usually does.

Cermank: A girl can feel guilty for inciting her perpetuator, doesn't mean she was guilty. And you literally ignored all other factors that govern a rape victim in India, so i dunno how to proceed.

The Fool: And implication is not necessarily ENTAILMENT. Implication is a weaker, and more looser expression of inference as appose to LOGICAL INFERENCE. Something may suggest something, but not necessarily follow.

The Victim

Cermank: It's not easy to come out as a rape victim in misogynist societies.

The Fool: that's not an argument, nor is it hard at all to say that somebody raped you. If that was true, there wouldn't be so many false accusations. Feminist have been lying, about how rare false accusations are.

Cermank: I: yeah, saying you were raped when you're definitely going to be stigmitized for it is something you'd want to do. A rape victim is marginalized and stimitized, and thus its not easy for her/ him to come out. You haven't really addressed that. The perpetual belief that rape victims 'invite' rape is pervasive. As the link I shared showed quite clearly.

The Fool: I'm not a feminist, I don't believe in "Rape culture" theory, Nor do those quotes entail what you are claiming. Either way Counter the general claim already.

RE: If a woman accuses a man of rape, she gets lots of social support, pity, sympathy and support even if there is no evidence. So don't give me that feminist crap.

Cermank: because logic.

The Fool: When you have 3 levels of university logic then come talk to me about logic. Until then, well, click this link to find out.https://www.youtube.com...

Against The Ideologist

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The feminist statistics, in regards to unreported rapes, includes, things that fall under the definition of rape in the study, which includes things people don't consider rape, in other words "normal sex", And then they use such manipulative at the statistics, as their justification. The fact that they get away with that is an example of misandry, not misogyny.

Cermank: : I didn't even give you a stat on false rape accusitions,

The Fool: You don't need to do it for me to counter it before you do.But then this begs the question, what are you basing the rarity of false accusations on?<(8O)

Cermank: I gave you EXACT QUOTES by defenders of justice in India who talk like they are on redpill.

The Fool: So much for your MRA status. For you sound like you're on the red rag. Either way, what you claimed didn't follow.<(8D)

Cermank: In a metropolitan, so the views of police in other areas would be worse.

The Fool: Yes because you've shown to be a person of integrity.

People who falsely accuse people of rape are abusers. And the fact that there's not even a penalty, despite the fact that it can ruin a man's life, is an example of misandry not misogyny.

Even when, it's women who falsely accuse men of rape, they, and women are still considered the victims and not the men who they falsely accused. That's misandry, not misogyny. I know you don't care about us, but I'm to letting you know.

Cermank: : dude, i am a MRA.

The Fool: You"re a damn fool!!<(XD)

MRA..Lol. Gimme a break.. Perhaps to yourself you are, and forever only for yourself. You, selfer you..

Cermank: I know the stuff you've accusing people of.

The Fool: How feminist of you"<(89)Please explain to me, who have I accused and what have I accuse them of?

Cermank: Being a MRA and a feminist isn't mutually exclusive.

The Fool: Feminist, deny MRA and Men the right to even have their own voice, so you have no idea what's going on. In fact they've violently protest against it. Forget about the fact that Feminist theory is not compatible with MRM. Either way, until we have equal representation between Feminist and MRA they are mutually exclusive. You can keep that logic on your side.<(8O)

The smelly side.<(89)

Your favorite side.<(8D)

Cermank: I'm letting you know that India is in serious need of feminism.

The Fool: Then I perceive you as opposition.

Cermank: EVEN MRA in India agree to this.

The Fool: Don't pretend to know what you're talking about. If there's one thing I hate, is a liar.

Cermank: There are obviously some unintended consequences, like false rape cases but they are so minimal that addressing them is worse.

The Fool: What? There is a report that more than half, may be false, that's not minimal. Even if it was only 1%, That line of reasoning Makes you part of the problem. False rape accusations are a huge problem.There is not even a penalty against it yet.

Cermank: MRA in India have more serious charges, like male rape being legally recognized, for example. Or getting adequate representation during a divorce and stuff like that.

The Fool: You're so fake, you should be the spokeswoman for the feminist movement at the UN.

Against The Ideologist

You love that side..

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: Are black people a misogynist race, because some black people are misogynist?If no, then the Indian society, is not a misogynist society. That's logic. Use it.

lol the irony.

If blacks aren't misogynists Indians aren't? I don't know about blacks, or their culture. I know about the indian society, and that's what i'm concerned with. If the gender roles are so engrained in the society that many of the possible *life* options are dependent upon your gender, then the society is misogynistic. In India, it was tradition to *not* educate the girl child (and still is, in a lot of villages and orthodox families) because all they have to do is cook and take care of children once they grow up. That's misogynist. Girls in many families aren't allowed to work, because the 'children will suffer'. like textbook patriarchy.,

Cermank: No offense, but what exactly do you know about Indian society?

The Fool: Philosophy, religion and history. (Ad hominem fallacy)<(89)

No offense.

wut

"Cermank: Of course not all the people are misogynists, but they are more of an exception to a rule rather than a rule. You are extrapolating your observations to a society that is very different from what you're used to.

The Fool: Strawman fallacy. You have no idea what I am used to. Your just making up stuff as you go along. Keep your feminism to yourself.

well, you're not used to Indian society- that I can be pretty sure of, given your ignorance on the matter.

"Cermank:: And I'm not even talking about advantages and disadvantages (I can't really think of advantages that are contingent on being a female atm, except maybe that you're cuddled and protected a lot more because its dangerous for you out there- which isn't a advantage persay), I'm talking about rape.

The Fool: So it's fair to say you're not that aware of much MRA literature. Don't worry if you're around you going to hear about it.

lol I AM an MRA. And I'm well aware of the literature.

Cermank : what are you even on man

The Fool: The rag. (Adhomin fallacy)

Cermank: Just randomly allotting percentages based on your mood, that's not how stats work.

Cermank: Becoming hostile does not imply guilt, by any stretch of imagination. And the feeling of guilt does not imply actual guilt, in any way.

The Fool: Yes it usually does.

solid arg bro.

This is like the exact argument I've been trying to explain since post 1. yes, MRAs have reason for concern, and yes, there are a few issues where feminists take it too far, but false rape cases in India is not one of them. This is something taht most liberal Indian MRAs in my circle accept. I don't know how you can be considered a good representative of any male right organization if you don't even try to understand the complexities of different cultures and different curves of feminism where the societies are placed.

Cermank: A girl can feel guilty for inciting her perpetuator, doesn't mean she was guilty. And you literally ignored all other factors that govern a rape victim in India, so i dunno how to proceed.

The Fool: And implication is not necessarily ENTAILMENT. Implication is a weaker, and more looser expression of inference as appose to LOGICAL INFERENCE. Something may suggest something, but not necessarily follow.

yeah, so?

The Victim

Cermank: It's not easy to come out as a rape victim in misogynist societies.

The Fool: that's not an argument, nor is it hard at all to say that somebody raped you. If that was true, there wouldn't be so many false accusations. Feminist have been lying, about how rare false accusations are.

Cermank: I: yeah, saying you were raped when you're definitely going to be stigmitized for it is something you'd want to do. A rape victim is marginalized and stimitized, and thus its not easy for her/ him to come out. You haven't really addressed that. The perpetual belief that rape victims 'invite' rape is pervasive. As the link I shared showed quite clearly.

The Fool: I'm not a feminist, I don't believe in "Rape culture" theory, Nor do those quotes entail what you are claiming. Either way Counter the general claim already.

RE: If a woman accuses a man of rape, she gets lots of social support, pity, sympathy and support even if there is no evidence. So don't give me that feminist crap.

ohmygod are you even reading what I'm saying?

I showed you a quote of an officer who said that rapevictims who complained cannot be real rape victims.

tell me how that's sympathetic. please.

Cermank: because logic.

The Fool: When you have 3 levels of university logic then come talk to me about logic. Until then, well, click this link to find out.https://www.youtube.com...